I think the best thing Democrats can do right now is shut the hell up and let House Republicans implode. When Dems get overbearing like you are, the public perceived such ridiculousness as catty and ambivalent. If you want to play politics, Jason, then play them so they're advantageous to your side.

I'm getting the feeling that you are down with my mission. If you read the right wing, you read much more over-the-top partisan craze-baggery than you read here at Delawareliberal.

They are constantly trashing liberals and liberalism with such a loud and unified voice that even liberals have begun to think that there is something wrong with making sure the little guy gets a fair shake.

I'd love to talk to you about my overall (outside the web) worldview sometime - but as for Delawareliberal, what you see is what you get.

Jason - This is a major, deplorable thing that is happening. Personally, I am waiting to see what shakes out from the cover-up theory. Really, whenever crisis like these come up, the opposition party always throws crap at the wall to see what sticks. No major party is innocent from slinging every available drip of mud before any verifiable truth is recognized. Sometimes they get the accusations right, sometimes they don't. In this messed up crisis, it appears verifiable support of the accusations is mounting. Un-freaking believable.

You know that I am an R, but certainly no run-of-the-mill R. I do ask that in your recent magnified hatred of R's to not go wild on the guilt-by-association rant. As each minute passes, it looks like there will be more hands involved in this, but certainly not every member of the R House will be culpable. Also, tread carefully, because there are a lot of friends in all walks in Congress. You just never know how many D friends may have been helping him, too.

I know you won't agree, but I don't see the national Dems doing this for the protection of the children. I absolutely see them doing this as opportunistic politicking to smash the Rs.

Point is, get the political slant later, go for the criminal slant now. Make those TRULY culpable face their consequence in law now. Attack the political connections once the charges are doled out. If nothing comes out of that, then the door is open on politics. Quite frankly, if nothing does come out of this, then you can pretty much be sure that there is backroom dealing going on.

Back to reality, I know I'm living in dreamland.

On the other comments in this thread, Mike has a point and you even supported it in your retort. You point out the over-the-top commenting from the (too-far-) right (-for-me). Is your method to rise above it and make constructive and adventageous postings beneficial to your cause, or just join in the dogpile and continue the spiral downward? You have gone incredibly ballistic the last several days, to a point I think unprecedented for even you. In my opinion, your points are being drowned by your psychosis.

it continues to amaze me that liberals are required to show such civility and restraint while conservatives are free to go berserk.

Anyway - here is what is driving the the ballistics since my return:

1) The press simply refuse to publish the facts of Mr. Castle's illness.

2) Republicans who set themselves up as the moral police of society have been discoverd to be the buggering culprits that they rail against in order to win single issue voters.

3) George Bush.

I think I have a right to go ballistic. I know you realize the damage that is being done by Bush & Co but there are still some who don't get it. Until now they had an excuse for not getting it - the constitution had no defense lawer in the courtroom. Now it does.

Believe me, I know it's both sides. That is what makes me sick about this scene. Note that I pointed out the opposition always throws as much crap as they can (Rs do it to Ds and vice versa). It is a self-perpetuating cycle and it sucks. The real problem loses definition and it instead becomes nothing short of a vendetta. Constructive criticism is absolutely a dying art form. It is far easier and sexier to jump for the jugular. I want both sides to show restraint, but in a me-first society, who makes the first move for the sake of humility?

I only bring this up to people that I think have shown the ability to make a difference but are falling away from it. Overall, it was a veiled-compliment with unsolicited advice.

For clarification, I do need to follow my own advice at times, too. I'm nowhere near perfect.

Constructive criticism is absolutely a dying art form. It is far easier and sexier to jump for the jugular. I want both sides to show restraint, but in a me-first society, who makes the first move for the sake of humility?

I track it back to when the Dems rejected Robert Bork for the SCOTU. Gingrich went after Jim Wright with a pick-axe and it has been downhill ever since.

I don't know without researching if there was something before that, but I will give you Gingrich as a lightning rod. He bases campaign strategy on that methodology! Plus, his name is Newt! Come on! Oops, I'm going evil.

Consider, too, Jase: The age of consent in DC is 16. Did you know that? That makes Foley's attempted liason legal. From what I understand, only his internet communication is illegal (based on legislation Foley himself helped draft).

Also consider the reaction to Dem. Rep. Gerry Studds (great last name) when he had a tryst w/a 17 year old girl. He was not only re-elected, but given leadership positions by the Dems!

So, I think Mike M. is right -- I wouldn't be out there yelling about it, Dems, especially in light of Studds and all the "It's the job they're doing, not their personal lives" that we all heard during the Clinton impeachment imbroglio. The Repubs will implode based on their "higher moral" stance in politics. Since the Dems smartly don't invoke that (for good reasons, usually), them bringing it up makes them look like fools.

I track it back to Reagan's smarmy line "There you go again!" after Carter CORRECTLY called Reagan out for being opposed to Medicare. Ever since then Republican campaigns have consisted mostly of disrespectful lies and mockery.

liberals have begun to think that there is something wrong with making sure the little guy gets a fair shake.

uhhh...I think Foley has been giving the little guy more tnan a fair shake for a while.

This is making my point of why the politicial ramifications should not even be part of this (yet). Shake out the criminal aspects (for Foley and then any cover-up conspiritor), then have fun in the political sandbox. The commenting is coming down to: Our transgessions aren't as bad, or are no worse than your transgressions, so there! That, in its own regard, is really nearly as disgusting as all it serves to do is trivialize the real issue at hand: an adult pursuing a minor sexually. Oh, that's right, too much beer.

Funny how the fact that he is 16 is turning this story to be ok. I am amazed how hard they are trying to justify it. It is hard to do, but wow, they really try to validate anything.

Hey in DC the consent age is 16....what kind of excuse is that. It is a boy, a sophmore in HS, being emailed to measure his pecker by a 50 year old Congressman that is a major force in protecting kids...

but hey laws are laws and the Dems did it too, like it was ok back then....

Wow Hube, you really are an amazing guy in a pathetic way.

Great comparison with a Dem that persued a girl (opposite sex) with a Conservative Male that persued a 16 year old boy...real nice...

dimwitty. You really are living up to your name. Try reading what I said. Just once. Reading is fundamental. In no way was I attempting to justify what Foley did, if you cannot get that past your rather thick brow.

Oh -- and you just showed what a homophobe you are. It is bad to pursue a male if you're a male, but OK to pursue a female if you're a male. (The former was 16 and the latter was only 17, so the age certainly has nothing to do w/your argument, does it?) Gotta love it when "tolerant" Dems show themselves to be the bigots they really are!

Jase: Did I did I not say I agreed w/what Felix posted? What else needs to be said?

Again, as Mike M. stated, Felix and I (and Ryan) say this whole deal is shameful and disgusting. That still doesn't change the status of Studd's actions. Or Clinton's. Were we or were we not told (re Clinton) by the Dems that it was to consenting adults? Legally, then, what happened between Foley and the page is the same, is it not? He's of the age of consent! Same w/Studds!

So, why don't you lefties just admit this? If what Foley did is outrageous, the what about Studds and Clinton, especially Studds since the girl was 17? And dimwitty does indeed show his homophobia because he thinks it's "better" to have an old man go after a young girl than a young guy.

Hastert says he didn't know about the e-sex IM's just the "overly friendly" emials.

IF that is true: what avenues were available to him? even if he suspected more was going on, what could he do? Can't kick him out if the House.Can he remove him from committees?Can he remove him from the "safe kids" caucus?

since the age of consent is 16, do the IM's reveal CRIMINAL bahavior? disgusting and perverse and imoral YES, but criminal?

there have been scandals involving congressional pages before. In 1983, Reps. Dan Crane (R., Ill) and Gerry Studds (D., Mass.) were both found to have had actual sexual relations with pages (Crane with a girl, Studds with a boy). Both were censured by the House; Crane lost his re-election bid in 1984, while Studds was re-elected six times before retiring.

Criminal for a mentor figure to proposition a minor in cyberspace?...uh, yeah, according to the laws enacted by FOLEY HIMSELF...And Denny Hastert needed to ask around. It seems like Fox News, the Miamai Herald, Jeb Bush and who knows else....the pages themselves for a start...could have told him something had he asked up to a year ago.